DDT & Lyme disease

[smstonypoint]

I think you are naive in regards to war time tactics.

I don't think so, especially when it comes to "weaponized" ticks. My understanding of wartime tactics is that you want to kill or immediately incapacitate the enemy -- not to "create a disease" that is nonfatal and that can be cured if caught soon enough.

Does your understanding of wartime tactics indicate that "weaponized" ticks" would be an effective weapon in our arsenal?

Let's consider two scenarios.

Scenario I from MLST of housekeeping genes captures geographic population structure and suggests a European origin of Borrelia burgdorferi

"...... the study suggests that B. burgdorferi originated in Europe but that this species has been prevalent in North America for a long time. It is likely that the surfacing of clinical cases of Lyme borreliosis in North America three decades ago represents the reemergence of this tick-borne pathogen out of refuges in which it has been persisting throughout the post-Columbian settlements and the industrial revolution."

Scenario II

Scientists on Plum Island "weaponize" ticks and create a nonfatal disease that can be cured if caught soon enough.

They have access to a time travel device that allows them to use their "weaponized" ticks on the Ice Man some 5,300 years ago. (New insights into the Tyrolean Iceman's origin and phenotype as inferred by whole-genome sequencing | Nature Communications)

The "weaponized" ticks are released or escape from Plum Island in the late 1960s-early 1970s and show up in Lyme, Connecticut.

Steve

 

[Coyote machine]

Quotes are from Post #67 unless specified otherwise.



I do have additional questions.

Looking at the history of Lyme disease as reported in Lyme disease - Wikipedia, I don't see any reference to Plum Island as the source of Lyme disease. Why doesn't your friend correct the record so that his "evidence" can become public knowledge?

I'm coming back to this group of questions posed by Steve to address his questions, in colored text, at this time in the Julian calendar: 8/17/17 10:39 PM EST, so it's clear to all who get easily confused as to who is speaking - CM
I'm doing this because it is easier to go line by line and address questions posed as they were presented in the original text(s). Additionally, blue text is me, CM speaking in rebuttal to Steve. Red text is text I have colored red to 'highlight' what I am then going to reply to specifically from Steve's original text(s).

Correct, you may not see any reference to Plum Island as the source of Lyme disease. I can't speak for my friend and I cannot say why he hasn't corrected the 'evidence' so as to make what he told me public knowledge. I suspect he has his reasons. Maybe some of his reasoning has to do with skepticism like yours, Steve, that he just doesn't want to deal with, but again, I can't speak for him, I can only offer my best guess as to his motivations.

Better yet, why doesn't he publish his research in a scientific journal so that it can be subjected to "trial by fire"?

Maybe you should ask him this and a million other questions you have for him, instead of throwing them at me. Oh, that's right, you CAN"T ask him since you don't have access to him to pester, like you are me.
I thought we were going to do some give and take experiment or similar- but it seems you want to continue with your berating me as the messenger; are you having fun yet doing it, because it's sure not motivating me to query him about more details regarding what he told me, and that seems counterproductive to your supposed motive(s).

Never mind, I know the answer to that question. By the way, The Journal of Irreproducible Results doesn't count.

Like Ha! Seems you like to think you know the answer to everything- NOT. You're the one familiar with the 'journal' you cite above; how much of your work does it contain?! Ha! Jest/jab.

Once again not getting you any closer to what you want from me, assuming for a moment what you say is what you actually want and not something else. Next few posts here will determine for me if you actually want to learn more or just like battling with me over something I posed early on in this thread, for which, one last time - I am merely the messenger of, NOT the party who claims Plum Island to be the source of Lyme disease.



Do you not understand how TBN' handles quotes?

Answered below earlier today when I wrote this original post, and then signed off to go do something else.

<Snip>

And now back to Steve's quote where I had suggested Tom Seller ask Steve if he's worked in a government lab, and so on...

Have you? (Worked in a government lab...)

I have been deposed as an expert witness for the plaintiffs in a lawsuit involving sarin: Contractor settles chemical exposure lawsuit | Deseret News. My reports and testimony were on statistical issues, but I did learn a few things along the way.


Good to know you still have the capacity to learn things; I thought maybe you'd already used up your gigantuan brain's full hard drive capacity! Ha! Joke/jest...


<Snip>


By your own admission, you haven't even bothered to do a cursory examination of the scientific evidence on the origin of Lyme disease. If you want to ignore the available scientific evidence and rely on hearsay and "public opinion" regarding a "weaponized tick" conspiracy as the the source of Lyme disease, you are free to do so.

It's not that I haven't even bothered to do what you say I haven't done; it's just not that high a priority in my life at this time- my entire original interest in the subject was seeking further clarification about Plum Island and Lyme disease infected ticks, and if there was any 'truth' to the rumors, etc. in the interest of a friend's spouse. It just so happened that I was in company with someone who had the information I was seeking when I posed a general question about Plum Island/Lyme...
Again, I'm not ignoring anything; I have numerous more pressing things going on in my life than becoming the World's foremost authority on Lyme and it's origins. It's called prioritizing...
Oh, and thanks for allowing me to chose free will as what drives what I do with my life/time...
I'm NOT ignoring 'available scientific evidence' or relying on public opinion or hearsay, exclusively - I am merely relaying information about a conversation I had with a person who, from my POV, is knowledgeable about Lyme and Plum Island. Hopefully, for the final time I'll say, if you don't like what I'm presenting, then don't read it, or chose to ignore it, or a number of other choices present themselves...you figure out what you want to do about what I stated.

By the way, has there been a poll to determine the public's opinion on the origin of Lyme disease? How many people were interviewed? How were the participants selected? How were the questions phrased? What was the margin of error?

I think you probably know the answer to the above questions- Is this more of the trial lawyer never asks a question to which he does not already know the answer?! Someone should have called to notify me I was going to be on trial...:confused3:


"Reasoning will never make a man correct an opinion, which by reasoning he never acquired." (Attributed to Jonathan Swift)

Steve

My Reply to the above comment:

“I don't want to belong to any club that would accept me as one of its members.” ...Groucho Marx

CM. Out for now...

<snip>

 

[smstonypoint]

I suggest you lighten the F up dude on the I don't know how TBN handles quotes rant. In most instances in which you've quoted some of my text you cut and paste it into a bubble instead of chosing, 'reply with quote' from the tabs available below any post. So when I try to reply to your unattributed to the author, me, 'quote' what you wrote doesn't show up in the text I quote. Oh Well, I made a joke about you using invisible ink. So sue me; doesn't mean I don't understand how quotes work, or how you manipulate them for your own purposes. That's the way YOU chose to do it, most likely because you don't like giving me the credit for what I wrote, who knows why, probably an ego thing....

If you take the time to check, you will find that I have started my responses to your posts with a comment that "Quotes are from Post #xx unless specified otherwise" or something similar. Here's an example.

Trust me on this, I want to make sure that you receive full credit for your comments.

You are missing the point of my "rant." When you make comments within a quote, your comments do not show up when I select "Reply with Quote." As a consequence, I have to copy and paste your comments. Have you read Post #70? Again, I would't want anyone else to be credited with those comments.

I have an appointment, so I'll address the rest of your slights and other rudeness shortly. I jest with you, often in good faith and to lighten up the diatribe; you seem to just want to cut mercilessly because it pleases you.
All for now, back later...

How do you know that I am not jesting with you?

How are we to distinguish when your jests are made in good faith?

How would you describe your comment to the OP in Post #49? "Re: Rachael Carson's Silent Spring being junk science; spoken like a no nothing moron."

Was it rude? Was it a slight?

I perceived it as a rude comment. Apparently you feel free to make such a comment and then feel offended when I make comments that you perceive as being rude.

Was this comment to me in Post # 58 a jest made in "good faith and to lighten up the diatribe"?

"Glad to hear you made it out of the cow pasture hopefully before picking yourself up from face down exposure to cow excrement. And you managed to master, you think around third grade, certain correct grammatical usages; well, it is a testament to Southern educational systems that you got that far, congratulations! "

I didn't take it as such, but I didn't accuse you of rudeness.

It would avoid confusion if you would add a smiley face after the jests that you make in "good faith and to lighten up the diatribe."

Steve

 

[aczlan]

I suggest you lighten the F up dude on the I don't know how TBN handles quotes rant.

First off, you need to lighten up on the quotes (and the language), seconds BOTH of you are quopting improperly, but Steve is closer to quoting properly.

In most instances in which you've quoted some of my text you cut and paste it into a bubble instead of chosing, 'reply with quote' from the tabs available below any post. So when I try to reply to your unattributed to the author, me, 'quote' what you wrote doesn't show up in the text I quote. Oh Well, I made a joke about you using invisible ink. So sue me; doesn't mean I don't understand how quotes work, or how you manipulate them for your own purposes. That's the way YOU chose to do it, most likely because you don't like giving me the credit for what I wrote, who knows why, probably an ego thing...

FYI, your way of replying WITHIN someone else's quote in a different color text is really confusing.

If you take the time to check, you will find that I have started my responses to your posts with a comment that "Quotes are from Post #xx unless specified otherwise" or something similar. Here's an example.
View attachment 518909
Trust me on this, I want to make sure that you receive full credit for your comments.
You are missing the point of my "rant." When you make comments within a quote, your comments do not show up when I select "Reply with Quote." As a consequence, I have to copy and paste your comments. Have you read Post #70? Again, I would't want anyone else to be credited with those comments.

There is a better way to quote, it starts like Steve quoted, but if you look at the top of the quoted text after you click on "reply with quote" it has something like the following: [QUOTE=smstonypoint;4846516], that says "this is quoting Steve from post 4846516 (4846516 being the unique post number). You can paste that " [QUOTE=smstonypoint;4846516]" at the beginning of each quoted section and if you quote like that (I often break up a quote into multiple sections as I have in this one), every quoted section has a link back to the original post (with this icon:

)if someone wants to make sure you didn't misquote them.

It would avoid confusion if you would add a smiley face after the jests that you make in "good faith and to lighten up the diatribe."

Yes, including emoticons to indicate when one is speaking in jest is recommended to make sure you are not misunderstood.

Aaron Z

 

[TomSeller]

I don't think so, especially when it comes to "weaponized" ticks. My understanding of wartime tactics is that you want to kill or immediately incapacitate the enemy -- not to "create a disease" that is nonfatal and that can be cured if caught soon enough.

You appear to be implying Lyme disease was treatable in wartime and able to be identified outside of military operations so I can't take your posts seriously. Ask the American indian if disease had an impact to their population. Horrible, horrible number of deaths.

 

[Coyote machine]

Steve,
Wouldn't it be easier to just select 'reply with quote?' than what you do, which I've seen you use numerous times in this and other threads?
It's not like I don't READ the posts you write; I may chose to not select every link you throw in, but the text body I read in each case; just in case you were wondering/curious.
Now for ease of my replying to all your questions posed to me I'm going to blue text my replies to them in a quote of your above post, below....

If you take the time to check, you will find that I have started my responses to your posts with a comment that "Quotes are from Post #xx unless specified otherwise" or something similar. Here's an example.

Time taken, see above comments by me, CM

View attachment 518909

Trust me on this, I want to make sure that you receive full credit for your comments.

Thanks, I guess.

You are missing the point of my "rant." When you make comments within a quote, your comments do not show up when I select "Reply with Quote." As a consequence, I have to copy and paste your comments. Have you read Post #70? Again, I would't want anyone else to be credited with those comments.

How kind of you to make sure I get full credit for what I actually said.





How do you know that I am not jesting with you?

You're not using smiley faces?! See the mods comments to our distinct methods of wrongful quoting practice...demerits to be awarded shortly...

How are we to distinguish when your jests are made in good faith?

Good question, tough to get a correct answer to this one- maybe you're NOT.

How would you describe your comment to the OP in Post #49? "Re: Rachael Carson's Silent Spring being junk science; spoken like a no nothing moron."

Was it rude? Was it a slight?

See next answer below...

I perceived it as a rude comment. Apparently you feel free to make such a comment and then feel offended when I make comments that you perceive as being rude.



First, it wasn't directed to you, second I stand by it then and now, third, if the truth hurts, it just does. I don't recall saying I feel offended, just that sometimes you come across as rude for no apparent reason that I can discern.


Was this comment to me in Post # 58 a jest made in "good faith and to lighten up the diatribe"?

"Glad to hear you made it out of the cow pasture hopefully before picking yourself up from face down exposure to cow excrement. And you managed to master, you think around third grade, certain correct grammatical usages; well, it is a testament to Southern educational systems that you got that far, congratulations! "

I didn't take it as such, but I didn't accuse you of rudeness.

No, at the time I was still pissed off by the BS I felt was being spewed by the OP, and it carried over to our then tone of dialog. I was being obnoxious about gated communities, to sting you, and you replied about the only gates you knew, etc. I carried that whole thing too far, and was doing some tongue and cheek cow pasture /cow excrement quips, but they were in context still too hurtful, and for the most part meant to be, at the time. Though I was still trying to infuse humor while jabbing hard, a mixed message in today's vernacular. As we went further down the road when you said something about us working to do an experiment or similar I felt maybe we were gaining some common ground, but then more recently it seems we're back to shooting the messenger, me, again.
I'd like to work together instead of being attacked for what I presented originally, and if that can be accomplished I might make further inquires of my friend....otherwise this discussion is about done on my end;
no clapping by the crowd, please.

It would avoid confusion if you would add a smiley face after the jests that you make in "good faith and to lighten up the diatribe."

Steve

[/FONT][/COLOR]It would avoid confusion if you would add a smiley face after the jests that you make in "good faith and to lighten up the diatribe."

Steve
[/QUOTE]

Only if you tell me I must!:dance1:

CM out for now....

 

[Coyote machine]

First off, you need to lighten up on the quotes (and the language), seconds BOTH of you are quopting improperly, but Steve is closer to quoting properly.

OK, I believe you're a mod here on TBN, and I'll take your comments, what I can understand of them, what with the misspellings and such, as they are likely meant to be construed...
I'm doing my usual SOP by writing my text in reply to the poster, in this case you, in the body of the text you wrote, because for me, especially in this instance I have to deal not just with what you quoted that I said, but also what what's his name, oh yeah, Steve, said, and was quoted by you too.

I get it that smiley faces or similar make clearer what one is trying to convey to the reader(s). However, I'm not always trying to be clear as much as trying to be UNclear and to create confusion in some people's minds - essentially playing double entendres and other word play to create innuendo and similar effects. Basically to throw some off guard, or to create havoc or confusion, because it can be fun, and it cuts down on the boredom of long posts/ long threads, etc.
And fun is allowed here on TBN, last I checked, no?!



FYI, your way of replying WITHIN someone else's quote in a different color text is really confusing.

I suppose it might be for some- but since your and Steve's recent comments I've tried to make things clearer while maintaining my preferred method of quoting, even if it doesn't fall specifically into the 100% correct way of quoting text at TBN. Not meaning to be obstinate- it's just how I do it and it's also become habitual, like most things familiar.



There is a better way to quote, it starts like Steve quoted, but if you look at the top of the quoted text after you click on "reply with quote" it has something like the following: [QUOTE=smstonypoint;4846516], that says "this is quoting Steve from post 4846516 (4846516 being the unique post number). You can paste that " [QUOTE=smstonypoint;4846516]" at the beginning of each quoted section and if you quote like that (I often break up a quote into multiple sections as I have in this one), every quoted section has a link back to the original post (with this icon:

)if someone wants to make sure you didn't misquote them.

Now to me that's confusing! I get that it gives the backcheck arrow to verify accuracy, but how does one get the: 'that says "this is quoting Steve from post 48465xxx' part sequence started? I get that each quote comes from a particular post reference # but what is one doing to get the 'look' you refer to with the back arrow being included?:confused3::confused2:



Yes, including emoticons to indicate when one is speaking in jest is recommended to make sure you are not misunderstood.

I guess I feel sometimes I want ambiguity and don't always like having to make crystl clear what my meaning might be...

Aaron Z

:laughing: See above imbedded blue text for complete clarity.

Thanks,

CM

 

[smstonypoint]

Steve,
Wouldn't it be easier to just select 'reply with quote?' than what you do, which I've seen you use numerous times in this and other threads?
It's not like I don't READ the posts you write; I may chose to not select every link you throw in, but the text body I read in each case; just in case you were wondering/curious.
Now for ease of my replying to all your questions posed to me I'm going to blue text my replies to them in a quote of your above post, below....




[/FONT][/COLOR]It would avoid confusion if you would add a smiley face after the jests that you make in "good faith and to lighten up the diatribe."

Steve

Only if you tell me I must!:dance1:

CM out for now....[/QUOTE]

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *

I am using the "Reply with Quote" option to post $76.


Yes, it would be easier but you insist on making your comments within a quote. Because you choose to make your comments within a quote, I have to go back to post #76 and copy and paste your comments. In those other cases I was responding to comments that were not embedded within a quote.


How hard can it be to understand? Jeez.

Common courtesy suggests making comments outside a quote.

Steve


* Because there is a mismatched QUOTE in post 76, I have added the dashed line to demarcate my response.

 

[smstonypoint]

You appear to be implying Lyme disease was treatable in wartime and able to be identified outside of military operations so I can't take your posts seriously. Ask the American indian if disease had an impact to their population. Horrible, horrible number of deaths.

OK.

Let me rephrase my reply to your comment that I was being naive regarding wartime tactics.

My understanding of wartime tactics is that the objective is to deploy weapons that kill or immediately incapacitate the enemy. How does deploying "weaponizied" ticks that are supposed to "create a disease" that is nonfatal but debilitating over time (if not treated properly) fit into your understanding of wartime tactics?

I tried to do some research on the effects of untreated Lyme disease and found this at Chronic Lyme Disease | LymeDisease.org.

"If Lyme disease is not diagnosed and treated early, the spirochetes can spread and may go into hiding in different parts of the body. Weeks, months or even years later, patients may develop problems with the brain and nervous system, muscles and joints, heart and circulation, digestion, reproductive system, and skin. Symptoms may disappear even without treatment and different symptoms may appear at different times.

Untreated or undertreated Lyme can cause some people to develop severe symptoms that are hard to resolve. This condition may be referred to as post-treatment Lyme disease (PTLD) or chronic Lyme disease (CLD). We don't know exactly how many people who are diagnosed and treated remain ill. CDC estimates range from 10-20%. A recent study of early Lyme disease treated at EM rash reported 36% remain ill."

I am not trying to minimize the effects of Lyme disease, but if I was in a war, I would want to deploy weapons that kill or immediately incapacitate enemy troops rather than wait weeks, months, or years for the ill effects of Lyme disease created by "weaponized" ticks to take their toll on the enemy.



Steve

 

[smstonypoint]

First off, you need to lighten up on the quotes (and the language), seconds BOTH of you are quopting improperly, but Steve is closer to quoting properly.



FYI, your way of replying WITHIN someone else's quote in a different color text is really confusing.



There is a better way to quote, it starts like Steve quoted, but if you look at the top of the quoted text after you click on "reply with quote" it has something like the following: [QUOTE=smstonypoint;4846516], that says "this is quoting Steve from post 4846516 (4846516 being the unique post number). You can paste that " [QUOTE=smstonypoint;4846516]" at the beginning of each quoted section and if you quote like that (I often break up a quote into multiple sections as I have in this one), every quoted section has a link back to the original post (with this icon:

)if someone wants to make sure you didn't misquote them.



Yes, including emoticons to indicate when one is speaking in jest is recommended to make sure you are not misunderstood.

Aaron Z

Aaron,

In good faith, I am going to adopt your suggestion. Apparently Coyote machine is going to continue his practice. See Posts 76 and 77. If he persists, I may start using screen shots to make it less difficult to respond.

Steve